tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 7, 2013 1:00am-6:00am EST
is going to include a cyber element to it. that is going to be part of the weapon that will be used to cripple us in the event of an attack. and i have to say, the united states, as part of our strategy, looking at how we would go after an enemy, we consider the importance of cyber or the cyber element as important. so, yes, we are living in that world. i have said this, and i believe it. it is very possible that the next pearl harbor can be a cyber attack. you could, in fact, cripple, as i said, are power grid, our financial systems, with a cyber attack, and it would have one hell of an impact on the united states of america. that is something we have to worry about and protect against.
>> good morning, mr. secretary. i am an international student from japan. i would like to ask your opinion on the island dispute between china and japan. it was revealed that the chinese vessel had lot weapons on the japanese navy. i want to hear how much you think an issue this was. >> i was just in that part of the world in the last few months. i had a chance to go to japan and visit with my counterparts in japan and discuss their concerns and then i went on to china to talk with them about their concerns as well. i believe that, especially the secaucus islands and the dispute over that, that territorial dispute, is one that concerns as -- us a great deal.
it is the kind of situation where their territorial claims that could ultimately get out of hand and one country or the other could react in a way that could create an even greater crisis. we urge, obviously, both the chinese and the japanese to exercise good judgment. in the pacific, this is a big region. part of our reason to rebalance to the pacific is because we think that, in many ways, our future economic security, our trade relationships, our security relationships will be in that part of the world. and we have great allies in japan and south korea and other countries that are working with there is a common set of challenges here. i said this to the chinese
leaders as well. one is their ability to respond to disasters in that part of the world, the ability of these countries to be able to react when a disaster takes place. the ability to deal with the threat of missile proliferation, especially in north korea and the threat that represents to the security of that region. the ability to deal with piracy, the ability to deal with cyber threats, the ability to deal with financial issues that we can provide security, the ability to deal with territorial disputes. that is why i thought islands is -- the asean nations are
important, an incredible issue to support. i told the chinese that it is in your interest to work with other countries to resolve these issues because, if your interest is in a pacific region that can be peaceful and can prosper in the future, you have to be part of that. it cannot be a china that threatens other countries. it cannot be a china that threatens to go after their territories and create territorial disputes. they have to be part of a family of nations in that region working together in order to ensure peace and prosperity. i sense in the leadership in china that they recognize the importance of trying to develop that kind of communication. i urge them that we should discuss cyber issues. ayers them that we should discuss defense issues.
and they said they were willing to engage in those kinds of strategic talks. and i think it will be very important for them to know that the united states, japan, korea and other countries in the part of the world will do everything we have to do to promote security and prosperity and that they should be a part of that, not against it. >> good morning, mr. secretary. but i want to thank you for your lifetime of service and leadership. i am a second year in math and science and foreign service and domestic policy. i am also an army veteran and them currently a member of the maryland national guard. >> good for you. >> in the political crisis and the economic crisis in this country, in your speech, you've talked about "week, the people," -- "we, the people."
i would like to bring up the social crisis currently. on average, members of the military commit suicide at the rate of 22 deaths per day. that is a the one death every 65 minutes. i would like to know what the department of defense and lawmakers can do to effectively address that crisis, the social problem. and also please say something about homelessness among veterans. >> yes. it is one of the most tragic issues that we deal with right now in the military. it is the growing rate of suicides that are taking place. and in some ways, they reflect the growth of suicide in the
general society. part of this, there's no question in my mind that it is related to the stress of war over the last 10 years, the fact that we have deployed people time and time again, time away from their family, time away from the ability to kind of get their feedback on the ground. -- feet back on the ground. to be able to repeat themselves into society. -- to re-boot themselves into society. a lot of that is due to stress. a lot of it is due to stress in the general society. financial problems, family problems, drinking problems, drug problems. all of that contributes to the growing rate of suicide. i think there is also kind of -- i guess i say this in part like a catholic, but the fact is that people somehow don't associate with suicides as being the wrong way to deal with a problem.
that is something i was raised to believe. you just don't do that. you just have to confront the challenges you have to confront. but today, there seems to be an attitude that suicides are a way out and they are not. they are not. our challenge is how do we deal with that? we are doing this. we need to do more. we have to build a support system for those in the service. we have to build greater abilities and deal with mental- health issues so that we understand that. we have to have better professionals who can identify those problems and provide assistance. frankly, we also need to educate the force. you have to have peers who are working alongside of you who can identify those problems. someone looks like they have problems, they are having a difficult time, to identify that and make sure that that person gets the help they need.
it is like everything else. all of us need to be aware -- all of us need to be a part of the answer to be able to make sure that doesn't happen. but this is something that -- there is no silver bullet. there is no silver bullet here. i wish there was. it means we have to operate on every front to do with this. -- deal with this. we have to be able to make sure that we deployed people in a rational basis so they are deployed into a combat area, but then have an amount of time that they can get their lives back together again. and do it rationally. that has to be done. we have to provide the support system, the health care system, be able to educate the force, to understand and to recognize those kinds of problems. all of that needs to be done if we're to address this. most importantly, i think we
just have to convey a message to those men and women in uniform that we treasure those who are willing to put their life on the line. we will not take them for granted. that is a message we have to get to them. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> ok. is that it? all right. thank you all very much. appreciate it. [applause] >> i thank you for coming and i have won favor to ask him if you could remain seated until you get an announcement to disperse, we would appreciate it. thank you very much for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
\ >> mm-hmm thursday, leon panetta and general dempsey talk about the attack on the consulate in benghazi, libya, which killed ambassador chris stevens and others. it will be live starting at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span. later, john brennan, the chief proctor terrorism adviser -- the chief counter-terrorism adviser, is expected to face questions on the cia drone program. we will be live with this hearing also on c-span.
>> what i discovered as i have gotten older and more mature is the strategy to achieve happiness in life, the worst way is to make that the primary goal. if you make happiness your primary goal, you will not achieve it. instead, you will be narcissistic and self involve, caring about your own pleasures and your own satisfactions in life as your paramount goal. what i have found is that happiness is best thought of as a byproduct of other things. family and friends and good health and love and care. it is, we get happiness not might indirectly for it by throwing ourselves into projects, -- we get happiness by
throwing ourselves into projects. >> leading to a better world, sunday night at 9:00 on c-span2, and find more booktv online. like us on facebook. tuesday, president obama talked about deferring the cuts that were to go into effect next month. wednesday, leading republicans on the armed services committees outline their plans to avoid those automatic defense cuts. this is 30 minutes. >> yesterday, the president gave us a proposal that cuts defense spending once again. it has $500 billion in new
taxes and also cuts in domestic spending. it is irresponsible, unacceptable. it leaves their troops and our economy and ready to face the challenges of the future. or the threats of today. when i went to the steering committee to apply for this job, i explained to them the way i saw the jobless to make sure that our troops, those who we sent into harm's way would have everything they needed to carry out their missions and return home safely. everything in the way resources, training, leadership, these things are very important. and i look at what is happening with these cuts that we have seen the last couple of years and it is just irresponsible that the commander in chief, his main job should be the same that i look at as my job, only
he should be looking out for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that he sent into harm's way. he should not send them with anything less than the told that -- the total they need. and to be stepping up and continuing to cut -- i visited with their top leaders, and they have told me that we have gone past cutting the fat. we have gone past cutting. we are into the bone. where they will have to cut will reduce the ability to train and equip these people properly. that will start costing lives. it is time for the president to face up to what the real responsibility is, with the real -- what their real problem is, and that is to look at mandatory spending. anyway, i am happy to be here today.
we have a proposal. i am happy to join the senators. we're putting forth a bill that will give us some breathing room on the sequestration and pays for all the sequestration for the rest of this year. it gives us time to think about it. it pays for it by having a reduction in the general -- federal work force over the next years through attrition. so it is as painless as possible to protect our troops. with that, i am happy to introduce senator inhofe. with the armed services committee. >> we said that we would projecting losses of $780 -- $487 billion over the next
thing years. we said this could not have happened. but it did. i have always enjoyed our close relationship and we continue now in a different forum. and me just mention a couple of things. for 14 months, we have called on the president to recognize the sequestration. i think it has been held down so thatpeople don't realize how bad it could really be. it was two years ago when senator john kyl and another senator got together with the house committee and looked at what we would do about it. that was the beginning of all this. unfortunately, when the president came have with the plan yesterday, i saw the plan. i saw the 25% term just this morning, i think it was in the politico press report, the
president has instructed his budget office to restrict the release of information on the devastating impact of sequestration so there is not momentum in congress to fix it. this has deteriorated some of the members of the appropriations committee into may be having hearings. there is no way to delay sequestration to the end of the year. there is a way not to do it. i applaud the house committee and senator ayotte and the work they have done. that is what this is all about today. this is a way of doing it without cutting defense is, without cutting domestics, and without raising taxes. if the sequester is allowed to take place and a continuing
resolution is not fixed, the department of defense stands to lose billions of dollars. the vice chairman of the joint chiefs said, "there could be for the first time in his career instances where he may be asked to respond to the crisis, and we may not be able to do it." where i am really pleased to the committee that we have and the minority in the senate, we have a lot of talent there. we will use all of that talent, we have people who are heading up are six committees, senators sessions, mccain, gramm, a -- ayotte and others on the committee. it has been my strategy in the past use this town to make sure they are the ones who will be driving it. senator ayotte. it will not be a one-man show. senator ayotte is the one who
has been driving this so far. with this, the bill, which will explain what we will be doing with that. kelly? >> thank you, senator inhofe. i want to for thank senator mckeon and my colleagues senators mccain and graham. we traveled around the country about this last year, a year ago, and the impact on our national security -- here is where we are. we know, based even from seeing the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, this weekend, on the sunday shows, what the impact of sequestration will be to our national defense. i guess i would ask everyone
here, do we think we're safer around the world around now with iran marching for nuclear- weapons capability? with the assaults and all of the 60,000 people who have been murdered in syria? with the weapons that we have seen from the gaddafi machine that has ended up in algeria? with that incident. we can go on and on about the let's not forget that we're still in war with our troops that we recently visited in afghanistan. so our national security challenges remain great and we have already reduced defense spending $487 billion. it is time for the commander- in-chief. it is his foremost responsibility to keep the american people safe and stuff sequestration. our defense should not be used as a bargaining chip because of other policy aspirations that people want to accomplish. we have introduced this bill that is similar to the one that we introduced last year, the
chairman mckeon introduced in the house, that addresses sequestration for defense and non-defense through the end of the fiscal year in september without raising taxes, and essentially taking the president's own fiscal commission proposal from the simpson-bowles, and we also have the congressional pay freeze as well to pay for this. yesterday, we heard with the president had to say. his proposal is unacceptable. it is insufficient. i agree with chairman mckeon on this. everything we have heard from this president seems to begin and end with tax increases. despite the fact that we have already given $600 billion in additional revenue just for a few months fix, he also wants
more on that and more cuts to our defense. even the his own secretary of defense said, if we don't address the sequestration, we will be shooting ourselves in the head. we will be hauling out our military. we will be substantially reducing our naval fleets, our armed forces at a dangerous time in the world. so i hope that my colleagues across both sides of the aisle will join in this common-sense effort. it gives us the opportunity to work out the bigger issue of fiscal issues now that the senate democrats said they're willing to do a budget. i also serve on the budget committee. this bill makes sense. i hope it is passed quickly. let's put where we are now. we have the president of the united states who said, during the campaign, this will not happen, when he talked about sequestration. here we are. his administration rewrote along -- the law on that some
people would not be worn on the impact on it. now he wants to use it to increase more taxes when we have a common-sense proposals right here from his own fiscal commission that we could pass to get us through september and it really makes sense so we don't undermine our national security for generations as our secretary of defense has said. i thank my colleagues for being here. it is an honor to be here with all of them. senator john mccain, who needs no introduction. >> but he always appreciate it. [laughter] i would just like to very briefly say that i thank senator enhofe for his attention tot his issue. -- senator inhofe and others on this issue. he pointed out the devastating effect of sequestration. if it is implemented, it will cut every ship, truck, a tank,
research and development across the board. the secretary of defense panetta, a man that i admire greatly, called sequestration a meat ax approach. i think it is important to note, according to one economic analysis, it costs a loss of $350 in full-time direct jobs, 650,000 indirect job losses. that is a lot of jobs. my friends, in these difficult times. secretary panetta said, "this has become a very serious threat to our national security." para chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says the same thing. in the late 1970's, after the vietnam war, the chief of staff testified before congress that
we had a "hollow army," which then caused the attention of the american people and one of the reasons why ronald reagan was elected to be president of the united states, because of our rapid decline in national defense that took place previously. we have seen this movie before and we live in a more dangerous world than any i can remember since the end of the cold war. this is the wrong time for sequestration to take place. we should be able to sit down together and resolve this without, again, asking the american people to have their taxes increased. i think you. next is the lawyer from south carolina.
>> we will spend $46 trillion over the next decade. the question is can we reduce spending by $1.20 trillion without raising taxes and destroying the defensethe answer is yes, if we wantthe president has a proposal. i don't think it does sound, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, it has try to fix ceqa station. we have done nothing in the senate. -- to fix sequestration. we have done nothing in the senate. we are not doing anything in the senate. so, harry, please take the president's proposal or come up with one of your own. put it on the floor and let's start voting. if you do not like what we are doing, come up with your own. we have our fingerprint as republicans on this sequestration idea. it was the president's idea that we come as the republican
party agreed to it. we got in this mess together and we will have to get out together. mr. president, helped lead us. -- help lead us. and on like anybody else on this stage, you are the commander in chief -- unlike anyone else on this stage. do you really want your legacy to be that you let the american congress into a deal that would destroy the military at the time it would need it the most? do you want to pivot to asia? how do you do that with 232 ships? when about iran acquiringhave you modernize the f-16 and the f-18? had you go deep into iran without the f-22 and the at-35 -- f-35 coming into being? our enemy would love this to happen here i'm sure iran is very supportive of sequestration.
i am sure that al qaeda training camps all over the world would be pleased with the fact that sequestration would gut the cia and the intelligence platforms we have to follow them around. it is not just about planes and tanks, the smallest airforce as in the history of the country, the smallest navy since 1915, the smallest farms since 1940. -- the smallest army since 1940. it is about the cia. it is their intelligence gathering capabilities. it is also about public education. it is about non-defense matters. so i am hopeful that we can finally start voting in the senate rather than just complaining about what the house does. to the president, we bear responsibility as republicans for allowing this to happen. lead us to a better solution. if you do not, mr. president, he will go down in history in my view is one of the most irresponsible commanders in
chief in the history of the country for what you have done, mr. president, that you allow the finest military in history of the world to deteriorate at a time that we needed it the most. let's not let that happen. >> let me just add or emphasize three quick points. one is, reducing civilians by attrition is a good idea, even at dod. i would remind you that yesterday, the recently departed secretary for policy argued in the washington post that we needed to reduce civilians at dod as a way of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true.
if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this.
as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic programs as well. today, we have another proposal out there on the table. i suspect there may be another one or two in the next few days. anybody who has been around washington in the past two months knows that, if anyone of us comes and says that the answer to this is taxes, they have not been living in the real world after what we have been through the last two months. it is time to get off the campaign trail and to be a commander. in chief. from ohio, a colleague mike turner. >> the president has gambled with their national security -- our national security with sequestration and it is a losing bet. to give some perspective, the defense budget is slightly less than 18% of all of our spending.
yet sequestration would have 50% of the cuts falling on defense spending. it falls on 18% of our overall budget. the president has now made a proposal that includes taxes, but also 50% of the sequestration cuts to fall on defense. when the president was campaigning, he said that the sequestered cuts would not happen. he did not say that half of the sequestration cuts would not happen. he said sequestration would not happen. so today we would free proposal -- today we have a proposal that would have half of the cuts. this has been a problem that has been around for over a year. and in this late hour, they come together with a proposal that he knows would not be in our coffers in time to offset the overall expenses that are needed in order to address the issue of sequestration. the president's proposal, in addition to raising taxes and
putting a burden on our economy, it is only have a solution. the bill that we're here for today is not have a solution is n, at half a solutiohn whole solution. and this is not half of a solution. it is a whole solution. as we look at the fact that the world is not becoming a safer place, these cuts are irresponsible. this bill allows us to restore responsibly the spending and make sure that our national security is protected and to look further into our budget to responsibly reduce overall spending. thank you. >> questions?
>> we had talked with you this morning about some of the concerns that even some rank- and-file republicans were having about this bill. some of them are willing to endure the sequestered just to get cuts. why -- are they willing to cover some in defense? what do you say to your fellow republicans? >> we will have a hearing next week, all of the joint chiefs. i think they will tell us that we are really in dire straits. they have said things from we have had meetings on this. we have had speeches, a lot of talk. and there is a waiting for the grand scheme of things that will fix everything. nobody was for a short-term solution. well, the president yesterday opted for a short-term solution. we just don't think it is a viable solution. it is not one that can pass.
we think the solution we're presenting here today is the problem that the chiefs are having to deal with. as has already been said, we have already cut $487 billion out of defense. the $500 billion of additional sequestration and the way things are cut evenly with no thought or planning is disastrous. and the commander-in-chief ought to step up and face the fact that he is the commander-in- chief. fine, show us. provide some real leadership. this quest to continually raise taxes is not going anywhere. we have already done that. now we are asking for real leadership for a real solution. >> are some of your republican colleagues willing to endure these cuts? >> there are plenty of things to
fight about. i think some of the differences i have with some of my republican friends is that we'rewe all want to fix the deficit problem. there is no question. but i think, when they have a chance to look at this bill and understand what we're really facing, i don't think we will have a problem. >> how is this different from the proposal from a year ago? >> did we have a pay freeze a year ago? [laughter] >> it is different. the house had the attrition of the workforce that is in this component. we had a combination -- instead of every three positions that came open. we had two. and a combination of overall across the federal government over a year. this is different here it combines both so we're on the same page.
and we have the house proposal on nutrition and we added congressional pay freeze on it. >> what makes you think this time around that the senate majority leader will take up this proposal? >> i would certainly defer to the chairman, but there is a real urgency here. one of the reasons that the president and the administration, during this campaign, didn't want the actual warrant act, the law that requires to notify workers that they may be laid off to go into effect is because they knew that someone's people understood the real implications of sequestration, that there would be public outcry. but here we are. different're in a place. people understand that there
are grave implications to this. i hope that the leadership would move forward with a very legitimate proposal that addresses this issue at least to the end of this fiscal year. >> do you feel comfortable tomorrow that you will have a vote on former senator table? >> i don't know. i want to say this about the question before last, on how does this differ from last year. last year, they were not desperate. they are desperate this year. last year, we were not talking about $487 billion. last year, we were not talking about the president's own secretary of defense saying that this is devastating and disarming america. that is a major difference between what happened last year. i think people are aware that this president has done everything he can to hide from the people the devastating effects of sequestration.
and the c.r., i might add, but as far as tomorrow -- >> excuse me -- >> there is information. i have talked to chairman levin. i'm not exactly sure what they will be done with that hearing. >> providing more flexibility? >> providing flexibility would be a last-ditch effort. this bill is one that will solve the problem. my introduction of that was merely to get the chiefs to sit down and analyze just how devastating this will be and what we could do with the same thought in mind to make adjustments to make it less devastating than it will be. that is the difference. we have already talked to the chiefs. they are working right now. it is best to accomplish this
first. >> they have said that there has to be a component of closing tax loopholes. there has to be some component. you're saying that this situation is desperate is it a willing to sit down? you can start raising taxes when you can do it without raising taxes. that is why we're here today. >> will have to have a -- have you get -- how do you get a bipartisan negotiation if you're they want. >> >> that is right. they run the white house. but that is not the majority of america. the american people did not say that we are not taxed enough. >> if we had those in this -- votes in this place, we might find common ground.
how about this as an idea? go to the president and ask him. during the campaign he promised this would not happen. if i get elected president, i will do sequestration in half. this is a big deal in virginia. this is a big deal in other states. so here we are, after the election. he didn't tell us i will raise taxes three times. $1.20 trillion in tax increases for obamacare. $600 billion in tax increases to avoid the fiscal cliff. and now you want to raise taxes yet again. how about the idea of trying to find some spending cuts that do not support the military when -- that do not destroy the military when you have $460 billion to choose from over the next decade. no more backroom deals. but the president's proposal on the senate floor and see how many senate democrats to -- feel comfortable raising taxes yet again. and to my republican colleagues.
after this hearing, if you feel comfortable with cutting the government this way, then you have lost your way as much as the president. what happened to the party of ronald reagan who said the number one goal of the federal government and the federal government's responsibility above all others is to fund the department of defense? what happened to that party? well, i intend to get the party back. i intend to fight for the party of ronald reagan. and we will explain to republicans and democrats what happens. if you let sequestration go into effect. and we will challenge our republican and democratic colleagues not to raise taxes every time we have a problem because there is a better way. economic growth is down. unemployment is up. let's start cutting spending. >> bring a bill to the floor then. the house has acted twice. the house has acted twice to avoid sequestration.
tell the majority leader, bring the president's proposal to the floor. so far, we have seen no indication that the majority leader of the senate will bring this to the floor of the senate. >> have you spoken with democrats about this proposal? >> sure, we have. they want to solve the problem. many of them say, yes, let's go to the floor. the debate. that is what we're supposed to do. they may not agree with this proposal, but a lot of the democrats i talk to are aware of how devastating impact will be the sequestration. -- how devastating the impact will be of the sequestration. the path we are in right now is that the congress will not act in the next 30 days. >> we will take one more and we have to wrap this up. the offset number is $85 billion. through september. yes, from the combination of
congressional -- the rest is through the president's fiscal commission. we have to wrap this up. but thank you. >> let me say one more thing about the question about what has changed. up until december, the joint chiefs were commanded to not plan for sequestration. now they have had time to look at it, and we will hear next week some very specific things that they told me in the last couple of days that, when people hear those things, when the call comes, we not be able to respond to these emergencies. and when the american people find that out, there will be some real change. thank you. >> thank you.
>> coming up next on c-span, house speaker john boehner on delaying the automatic spending cuts. house majority leader eric cantor and steny hoyer discuss the schedule for next week. that is followed by congressman henry waxman. and ranking member on proposed climate change policies. >> thursday, defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs chairman general dempsey testify about the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya, that killed ambassador christopher stevens and others. we will be live with the armed services committee starting at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. later, john brennan, the cia director joyce, testifying before the senate committee. he is expected to face questions on the cia drone program.
we will be live with this program starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span. >> if you go to most american history textbooks, if you go to the back of the textbooks you have in the basement, you can take me up on my bet. my bet with you is that in your american history textbooks in high school, you'll find no mention of eugenics. if you go to your biology books, you will find no mention of the word "eugenics. a biology books signed by most of the places, montana university, great textbooks, but i did not see any mention of eugenics. that is because we, scientists, no longer believe in eugenics,
so we do not have to study it anymore. it was so awful that we can somehow pretend it is not part of american culture. >> part of lectures in history, saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. house speaker john boehner told reporters he will oppose a delay of automatic budget cuts without spending cuts and reforms. he was responding to president obama's call for a short-term debt as a reduction package that combines spending cuts with tax revenues to delay the sequester. this is 10 minutes.
>> morning, everyone. you know how much missed all of you last week. the number one priority for the the american people is creating jobs and getting spending under control. even though we are a minority party here in washington, the republicans have made every effort to address the concerns of the american people. less than two years ago, president obama said, all -- ultimately, all of this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. unfortunately, the senate democrats have done almost nothing to address our long-term debt problems. yesterday, the president warned of grave economic consequences if the sequester were to go into effect. but he did not announce any specific plans on how we would address it. he did not bother to actually outline what would place the sequester. but he suggested and insisted upon in august of 2011 -- he
did not tell us when we might see his budget, which is again late, and how he would address the sequestered in his budget. all of this underscores the importance of the efforts of republicans to push the issue and to take this branding problems here -- the spending problems here seriously. washington desperately needs some adult leadership. that is why republicans have twice voted to replace the presidents sequester with common-cents cuts and reforms that protect our national defense. that is why republicans have passed budgets in each of the last two years. and we will pass another one here in the coming weeks. we believe there's a better way to lower the deficit. but americans do not support sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes. the president's sequester should be replaced with spending cuts reforms that put us on a path that would balance the budget over next 10 years.
the american people believe that the tax question has been settled. they know the president called for a balanced approach to the debt, a combination of revenues and spending cuts. and they know that he has gotten his revenue. the american people do not believe that he will not get more revenue to lower the debt. the president has attempted to spend his way into prosperity over the last four years. the president does not believe we have a spending problem care -- problem. he genuinely believes the government's spending causes economic growth. if that weren't true, the economy would be thriving. it is not the right thing. the unemployment rate is still 8% and rising. small businesses are struggling. middle-class families, those that are lucky enough to have a job, are living paycheck to paycheck. and president obama just
insisted on raising their taxes. americans know that another tax hike will not help them. they want to get spending under control so the economy can grow and they have opportunities again. democrats say we should replace the president's sequester with revenue increases or delay it. republicans say we should replace with responsible reforms that will help us on a path that will balance the budget for the next 10 years. the republicans may not be the majority party here and washington, but the majority of the american people agree with us on this. we will stand with the american people. >> there are a number of initiatives that the senate is moving ahead. you think it will be a problem for democrats to get behind some of these proposals?
although he has not been specific, you have had certain issues with certain bills. it will be tough for harry reid and the senate's. these are issues that will come over here at some point. don't you think it will hold up the process if he is having trouble on these issues? >> the process was designed to be inefficient and difficult so that, if congress were able to move a bill through both houses, they could agree upon a bill, it would actually become law. and so, at the start of every session, there is always a number of issues that carry from the prior session. frankly, there's a lot of scar tissue that carries over with a lot of these bills. it is up to congress to figure out where the common ground is. and how to deal with it.
>> what does this mean for your party politically if the sequestered goes through? >> let me make clear, i don't like the sequester. ax. -- i think it will be like taking a meat ax to our government. the president did not want to have to deal with the debt limit again before his reelection. it was the president and senate democrats committed with us to get an outcome from the super committee. but when the super committee could not give an outcome, the sequester would go into effect. i believe -- we know what the menu of options are. cut the reforms that we can put in place, that will put this into a sound fiscal path, help investors and business people in america understand where it is that the government is going, being more responsible about our debt, and those cuts and reforms ought to be put in
place. we passed a bill twice to replace the sequestered. it is time for the president and the senate democrats to do their job. >> the senate last year passed bipartisan reform and the house has not acted yet. what do you think that means in this congress? >> and now they're interested in moving a postal reform bill. i know there are looking to have bipartisan conversations on how to do this. i would hope that the congress would act in a timely fashion. >> why has the postal service lost [indiscernible] last year. i am sorry. the congress could have done
something. given that the senate had passed something. why haven't they? >> trying to act in this postal area is pretty difficult. i a understand where the coastal -- postal commission is coming from. they are in charge with maintaining the post office. yet the congress, in its wisdom, has tied their hands every which way in order for them to actually run the post office in a revenue neutral way. so congress needs to act. there is no question about that. and i hope it will act soon. >> recomposed with the sequester? >> -- were you opposed? >> why did you make of the speech at the american enterprise institute yesterday about the republican future? >> i think he did a very nice job yesterday, pointing out why there's an awful lot of discussion about the deficit and the debt and long-term fiscal
situation. there are other issues that republicans care about that are consistent. they did a very good job. >> we have seen the unclassified memo on what the white house uses for [indiscernible] are you comfortable with any president of the united states unilaterally choosing, in certain cases, to kill american citizens in an extrajudicial fashion? if the present judges? -- president judges? not necessarily an imminent threat? >> chairman rogers put out a statement yesterday. i agree with what he said. >> you said that obama got his revenues. has his revenues. but in december, you offered a trillion dollars in revenue. the fiscal cliff the deal got
$600 billion. if obama took care last offer, -- took your last offer, $1 trillion, could that passed -- pass the house? >> who knows what would happen today? but the fact is that the trillion dollars in spending cuts and reforms that were on the table, the president never agreed to. and the trillions that i put on the table was not enough for the president. the republicans have active. -- acted. it is time for the senate democrats and the president to act as well. >> mr. kantor said the pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought in as minors, do you agree with that?
>> there is a lot of bipartisan work going on here in the house and in the senate. i want to do everything i can to foster this continuing conversation in a bipartisan fashion to deal with what is a very difficult issue in our country. but, you know, it is certainly worthy of consideration. >> you talked about how you do like the sequestered. this morning, secretary panetta said it would cause a serious readiness crisis in a decade. you know that the senate would not take a bill. why are there no bipartisan talks? why is it up to the senate democrats if you don't like it? why not talk to them about it? >> we have acted. if they want to act and pass the bill, we can agree to it or maybe we could get a conference. but i am more than willing to work with my senate colleagues on the plan that will have cuts and reforms to put us on a path to balance the budget in 10 years.
>> [indiscernible] >> i am taking a deep breath. [laughter] now, we have until the end of the year. and we have this issue of taxes. it was not like the congress and the president did not know for two years that all the tax rates would go up on the american people on january 1. the house passed a bill in 2011. it passed another bill in 2012 that would expand all of the tax -- extend all of the current tax rates. the the president is talking about moving the sequester out more. we have the deficit so we were not jeopardize in the united states up rigid government. at some point, washington has to deal with its spending
problem. i have watched them kick the can down the road for 22 years. i have had enough of it. it is time to act. >> next, house majority leader eric cantor and steny hoyer discuss work for next week. this is 30 minutes. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i might ask a preliminary question. when the gentleman refers to the bill that is to be considered next week, i presume he is referring to the cost of living adjustment increase? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman, mr. speaker, it is the pay increase that is within
the president's executive order. mr. hoyer: which deals with the cost of living increase, am i correct? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would just say it is a pay increase within the president's executive order. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i disagree with his conclusion. clearly what we are dealing with is a cost of living increase similar to that which is given to social security recipients and others to make sure that the pay is not degraded. that average working people in this country, federal government, receive. including large numr of people in virginia and my state. but that's only 15% of the federal work force, which is around the country. i think it's unfortunate that now for 2 1/2 years the only working people, the only working
people in america who have received a freeze or decrease or have contributed to solving the debt crisis, which confronts us with which i -- the gentleman and i agree are federal workers. not talking about members of congress. i'm not talking about the president or the vice president. the president doesn't get a cola adjustment, obviously. but it's a cost of living adjustment and will i say to my friend that i worked over the last 20 years with his counterparts, either in the majority or another -- minority to made sure we make the distinction so people understood and didn't demagogue that issue. i regret we are doing so here again. while it may well be appropriate to from time to time freeze even the cost of living adjustment, it is also appropriate to refer to it for what it is and not as a pay raise. in fact, the courts indicated as the gentleman knows that it is a
cost of living adjustment. we don't need to debate that further unless the gentleman wants to say something. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would just say that the statement that perhaps federal employees are the only ones who have had to shoulder the burden, i don't necessarily agree with that because there are millions of people in the private sector who have not only have gone without a pay increase, many of whom don't have a job any more. you also have the instance, mr. speaker, that many millions of americs have just received a significant tax increase due to what happened here on the fiscal cliff bill. there are a lot of implications and consequences for the down turn -- downturn in the economy. i dare say there are a lot of people suggling out there in the private sector. so i just take a little bit of difference from the gentleman in saying that no one else is sacrificing right now because there are a lot of people that
have no pay increase. a lot of people that have no jobs. i yield back. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. the gentleman respectfully misstates what i said. there are a lot of people sacrificing. a lot of people who don't have jobs. i want to talk a little bit about that as we deal with this -- or don't deal th the sequester. what i said was, the only people that we have as a policy reduced -- the gentleman is correct. we did raise taxes on those over $400,000. nobody in the federal service makes over $400,000. the president makes $400,000. he's at the top, as he should be. he doesn't get a cola adjustment. there's nobody in the federal service who makes over $400,000. they are the only people we have raised contributions on. others have in fact, indeed, sacrificedbecause they have lost their jobs, they have had their pay frozen because of the
bad economic times, and the sequester is going to make it worse. and we'll discuss that. what i am simply saying is the gentleman is not serving the long-term interest of this institution, in my opinion, in not accurately describing at we are doing. that's what i said. that's what i mean. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: thank you. i would say to the gentleman, again, there are millions of people who have been impacted by the payroll tax going back in to effect. and that effect not just the people making $400,000 and over, he knows that as well as i do, there's also millions of americans now who are impacted by the obamare tax that's gone into effect. so there are a lot of things that are going on. people in the private sector, the gentleman agrees, are suffering as well. so i just want to say i understand the gentleman. i think long-term he and i both are interested in trying to get
us on to a plan to balance this budget so we can see growth returning to the economy again and everyone could see a day of higher wages and a future of better compensation. that's the goal i think all of us are driving towards. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. of course that's what we all agree on. but frankly that rhetoric do not substitute for action. automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, as you know, would cut u.s. growth in half in 2013 if allowed to go into effect. c.b.o. said that what we have already done has harmed the economy. it is time for us to get on and deal with real solutions, not message bills as we did this week and we did two weeks ago. that's all we have done. we met six or seven days this month, last month in this
congress, we are dealing with message bills. the bill that we considered this week, the only bill of substance we considered this week, other than suspensions, will not have any positive effect on the sequester. and the sequester is going to hurt our people, it's going to hurt jobs, it's going to hurt our economic growth, it's going to do exactly the opposite of what the gentleman says, and i agree with him, that we agree ought to be our objectives. . an overwhelming number of your folks did not vote for that, of course. the gentleman did. and i joined h in that effort. we postponed that until march 1, the sequester. we're 20 days away from the sequester. we didn't do anything about it two weeks ago, we didn't do anything about it this week and we're apparently not going to do anything about it next week either. there is no legislation which has been propod by the majority party to make sure that the sequester does not go into
effect. the president of t united states spoke about that yesterday. mr. van hollen had a proposal to specifically deal with the sequester, to specifically preclude the sequester from going into effect. from specifically precluding the adverse effects that are going to occur to our national security -- to our national security structure and to our nondefense discretionary spending structure. we still now haven't seen anything from your party that would help stop the problems of sequester. i was deeply upset that you did not make in order the van hollen alternative. clearly that alternative would have made a very substantial difference on the sequester. the president would have signed that and the senate in my view would have passed it. but we didn't even get to
consider it on the floor. mr. majority leader, we're either going to consider alternatives, and i read the majority leader's speech yesterday about reaching out and doing things in a bipartisan way. one thing -- one way we can do that is to allow both sides offer their alternatives and have an up or down vote, let the american people make a judgment on that. very frankly i think that the american people would have said that the van hollen alternative was the preferable alternative to the sequester. now, there are a lot of your members who apparently think the sequester is ok. your own quote, mr. majority leader, under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9%, setting back any progress the economy has made. according to the same study, the jobs of more than 200,000 virginia ans -- virginians in my home state are on the line. that's what you said on september 13, 2012. i think you were right. i applaud you for that
statemen but i regret that we have had no legislation put on this floor. two week ago in this week, or -- two weeks ago, this week, or in your announcement f next week, to preclude the is he quester from going into effect which you say -- sequester from going into effect which you say will have an adverse effect on 200,000 virginians. another quote from representative rooney with which i agree, we've tried to replace sequester with other things but it seems now that the large portion of our conference is resigned to the fact that sequestration is ok. mr. oney correctly says, it's not ok. it's dangerous and a huge mistake, a threat to our liberty . that's what tom rooney of florida said. and i applaud him for that statement. i think he's accurate. bill young, who is -- has made his whole life's career making sure that we he a strong
national security, said this, i'm reading what a lot of different members are saying and i find lamentably, that'my word, not his, i find there is not as much opposition to sequestration as i thought there might be. in other words, a lot of your folks are saying -- are saying the sequestration is the way to go. representative john shimkus said, he, president obama, can announce all he wants. sequestration is coming. it's coming. we've got to get spending cuts, no new revenue, it's all about spending. so he's welcoming the sequester. tomko burn, i think sequester is going to happen. i think peopleant it to happen. i don't want it to happen, mr. leader. i don't think it ought to happen. i think it's going to be bad for the country. if sequester happens. the president doesn't want sequester. harry reid doesn't want sequester. and i don't want sequester. and i would hope, based upon your comment that i just quoted,
you don't want sequester. but we're not going to get away from the sequester unless there's legislation that you bring to this floor and you have the authority to do that, that will obviate going to sequester and will put inplace an alternative which will do what both of us want to do which i address the deficit and the debt, both short-term and long-term. senator says, i have a feeling sequester is going to happen. i think there's so much concern about the debt and spending that it overrides most issues these days. now, those most issues are those 200,000 people that you talked about in your statement. another senator said, looks like where we're headed, sequestration. the sequester is the only cuts we've got right now. so the consequences of the sequester are apparently not something he wants to avoid. gridlock is leading to spending reductions, if the government does nothing, spending goes down. we have to claim victory,
congressman mulvaney from south carolina said that. now, in terms of the sequester, i want to point out to you that there's been some comments on your side, this is the president's initiative. that's absolutely 100% inaccurate. in fact, the alternative in your cut, cap and balance bill, i know the majority leader knows it, is sequester. that's the fallback. we put sequester in place thinking that it was so irrational, have such a negative effect that clearly we would address the problem in the last 14 months. we didn't. we ought not to quit trying to do it, though. we ought not quit getting an alternative. mr. van hollen had an alternative. as a matter of ft, in terms of the agreement that we reached, speaker boehner said this back in august 1 of 2011. when you look at this final agreement that we came to with
the white house, i got 98% of what i wante. i'm pretty happy. that's john boehner's quote. so it's not as if this was our deal. the speaker says he got 98% of what he wanted. now he says is he quester is happening becae the president didn't lead -- saying is he questing didn't happen -- is happening because the president didn't lead. that's totally inaccurate. the president was prepared to be supportive of mr. van hollen's alternative yesterday. you can say you want to plan. that was his plan. we offered it. that was mr. van hollen's plan we offered. that was our democratic alternative. and it would have avoided sequester. so i sayo the gentleman, i'm disappointed that the schedule does not reflect substantive, meingful legislation to avoid
the sequester which i think, what we certainly don't want, i don't know about your side, based on the quotes that i've just given you. but i would hope that the majority leader would with the speakers and others in his caucus seriously think about next week, making in order a substantive alternative to the sequester. mr. price says we did something the last congress. the last congress is gone. you passed something the last congress. you want to brick that to the floor and pass it -- bring that to the floor and pass it again? you know the president won't sign it and the senate won't pass it. the fact of the matter is, we've got to get to compromise, mr. leader. and if we don't get to compromise, we're not going to get a solution to sequester or to bring our debt and deficit down. i'lle glad to yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i tnk the gentleman. and i would just say simply, mr. speaker, once again, what we hear from the gentleman and his caucus is, let's raise taxes,
that will fix the problem. we all know that the problem is spending. and the gentleman correctly refers to two bills that we had on the floor last year. one earlier in the year and one in the fall. both of which were designed to address the real problems as he suggests we need to do about the spending and the growth and the entitle -- in the entitlement areas which he knows as well as i are the main drivers of the deficit. we passed that bill without any help from the gentleman's side of the aisle and without any resirpcation from the senate. nothing -- resipcation from the senate. nothing. the senate did not move and the white house did not move. so if the gentleman suggests there's no compromising going on, i'd ask him, how is it that the white house or the senate is compromising at all if all we hear again and again is, just take more money from the american people, that will fix
the problem? no, mr. speaker. that's just kicking the can. and that's why don't want to take up the gentleman from maryland's bill that the democratic whip suggests. because it's just raising more taxes. not to mention the fact it was not germane today. and the gentleman, as a protector of this institution, knows you can't bring up an alternative or an amendment that's not germane. you can but it's not protecting this institution. so i'd say to the gentleman, please, let's sit down together and address the real problem. not raise more taxes and kick the can. that's the uncompromising position that seems to dominate the majority party in this town. which is controlled by the senate and the white house. mr. speaker, the democrats are couldn't constantly sing, let's raise more taxes, take more money from the american people so we can fix the problem and keep spending their money.
that's not the direction we want to go in. so i'd say to the gentleman, we want to do real fixes. we have consistently, as the gentleman knows, we have put out there and said, here's our prescription to balance the budget. right? and we said, please, senate, move. let's hear your plans. mr. president, please, you've missed the deadline again, let's see your plan. let's show it to the american people and have the discussion about the proper way to manage down this debt andeficit. but nothing, nothing yet. i will say to the gentleman, what he calls a meaming bill is now law -- message bill is now law. so with that bill we'll see what the senate says about managing down this debt and deficit. and hopefully if the plan act were to ever be taken up by the senate we'd have the president to say, here's how i'm going to balance the bget, here's how long it's going to take and
here's how i'm going to do it. that's the rational way to approach when you have two sides tang different approaches to the same problem. and, mr. speaker, we've just had a one-way effort here. asking the gentleman, please join us, please join us in fixing the long-term problems. otherwise we're going to keep mounting the debt that is facing us, our children and theirs and we are going to be looking at the end of the situation that's just not what the american people want. so i know the gentleman says, you know, let's just keep spending now, keep taxing, that doesn't help. that doesn't help long-term. and we're trying to doong-term planning to get this country back on track. and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it's good spin but inot substance. it was a silly bill. the senate passed it and the president signed it because it
was the only way we could make sure that we did not put the credit worthiness of the united states at risk. because we're paying this game of chicken, because there are some people in this congress who believe that america's putting risk our credit-worthiness is a worthwhile objective. we reject that out of hand. i continue to believe it was a silly bill we passed. yes, it was a bill that the president signed because he wanted to make sure that we didn't default on our debts and we tried to give some confidence, as the gentleman talked about, for years to the economy. so, yes, he signed the bill. but it had nothing to do with obviating the sequester. the bill that we passed today affects no substantive progress. none. zero. zip. and the gentleman talks about your plan, the ryan plan, as the gentleman well knows does not balance the budget until well into the 2030's and therefore,
heaven knows what's going to happen in the next 25 years. mr. cantor: will the gentleman eld? mr. hoyer: i certainly would be glad to yield. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i hear the gentleman's objections to our plan, our budget prior. we are going to come forward with another budget that will balance in 10 years. mr. hoyer: i'm looking forward to that. mr. cantor: where is the gentleman's plan? where is theresident's plan? where is the other body's plan to balance this budget? that's all we're saying. if we can just get down to an equal level of discussion and say, let's do the adult thing and try and resolve the mounting unfunded liabilities of this federal government, we can actually make some progress and get on about the business of helping people in this country, making their life better, making their future better. that's the goal. instead of trying to go in and just kick the can because there's never any attempt to resolve long-term problems and
that's where we're coming from and i yield back. mr. hoyer: as the gentleman knows, i've been one of the leaders certainly on this side and in this house to get to a balanced plan. a balanced plan, yes, does include revenues. you want to say get more money from the american people. we buy things. as a people we buy things. people send us here, 435 districts, and we vote on buying things, one of the things we bought, of course, was defending ourselves from terrorists. both in iraq and in afghanistan. it cost us $1.3, $1.4 trillion. when you were fully in charge. we paid zero for it. . that's the largest expenditure other than the two tax cuts which we did in 2011 and 2013. by cutting spending which you say is the problem. you didn't cut spending when you re fully in charge of the house, senate, and presidency. that's one of the reasons the tea party was so angry at some of your people because you felt were you all icharge and
didn't cut spending. maybe some in this chamber. mr. cantor: would the gentleman yield again? mr. hoyer: let me finish my thought. i say to you right now you are talking about a plan. paul ryan said yesterday the founng fathers would be upset with the president without coming up with a plan. the constitution contemplates the president having very little, if any, role other than execution of the budget in the budget process. that didn't come until the last century. the fact of the matter is, it is our responsibility, not a nickel can be spent in america unless the congress authorizes it to be spent. the president can't spend money on his own. not a nickel can be raised in this country, of revenue, without the congress actinon it. the president can't do that. it is the congress of the united states on article 1 that has this responsibility. we are not taking that responsibility. we are trying to shove it off on somebody else, in this case the president of the united states.
the president has a plan. he offered it a number of times. you just read a book that discussed our discussions for some period of time. with the president on this plan. he he sent budgets down here. -- he sent budgets down here. there is not a bipartisan commission that i know of that has not suggested in order to solve our debt and deficit problem that we don't have to have a balanced plan which will involve revenues and will volve cuts in spending, cu in spending to entitlements, cuts in spending to discretionary spending. i agree with that. now i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i just say to the gentleman. we just raised taxes we just put more revenue into the mix, $650 billion over 10 years and got no cuts, n cuts. and the gentleman talked about 98 -- the 2001, 2003 tax cuts without paying for them. we just extended most of those
tax measures and relief to people under $400,000 with no cuts. nothing. ain i don't think it's right to be saying that we need more venues. we already did revenues, right? we already have $650 billion. why does the gentleman continue to think, mr. speaker, that that's what we have to keep doing? it's not the answer. t's get to the problem that is causing the mounting deficits. it's a lack of growth and it's the spending that's out of control. i yield back. mr. hoyer: we are not going to resolve this argument, mr. speaker. it's the se litany on both sides. thdifference is the gentleman cannot name a bipartisan commission that doesn't say that we need both sides of the equationddressed if we are going to get from where we are to where we need to be. d my side, we have to deal across the board with spending. u're correct on that. on your side you are going to
have to deal with revenues. a lot of your people understand thatike mr. coburn and others. i won't mention anybody on this side of the aisle because i don't want to get them in hot water, but ty all understand that. what you're saying is, the senate needs to compromise, the president needs to compromise by doing it your way. that won't work. your way or the highway i not -- mr. cantor: what about the revenues we have already now done? these are $650 billion, mr. speaker, already raise, no cuts. the fact the gentleman keeps saying there is no revenue -- mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. the gentleman voted for the budget control agget. how much cuts were in the budget control act? $1.2 trillion as i recall -- $1 trillion, excuse me, which is why we had the supercommittee to get the additional 1.2 the speaker said he wanted. you assumed, your side assumed we had already done a trillion
of the $2.2 trillion that the speaker said was necessary. the speaker and your side, i presume, already adopted the premise that we have cut $1 trillion in the budget control act. now, do we need more? i think the answer to that is yes. mr. van hollen in his proposal made some cuts. i'm not saying you should have supported it. i'm saying you should have allowed the american people to have that alternative on the floor to consider. you say it wasn't germane. you and you both know, you know the rules committee process as well as i do. we could have waived that because the issue in front of us immediately, we are talking about the long term, immediately, is in 22 days, or 23 days we are going to have a sequester. almost everybody agrees that the sequester will have an adverse impact on the economy and on our national security and on
discretionary programs, because it will be irrationally done, across-the-board, without recognition of priority status. so that i tell me friend, i regret that we are not dealing with the sequester. i would hope the gentleman would put legislation on the floor next week to deal with the sequester, deal with an alternative to the sequester, not talk about what we did last congress. we didn't agree with that. you are right. we voted against it. put something on the floor that deals with the sequester and i will tell my friend, i liked your speech. you said again today, wants to work in a bipartisan fashion. the fact of the matter is we had an election. and in the election the american people said they felt the president's view had merit. which was a balanced approach. yes, revenue, but also cuts in spending. and the senate expanded its numbers. notwithstanding the fact that they agreed wh the president's
position and not with yours. and in fact more people voted for the democrats in the house of representatives, they voted for republicans, but the restricting resuld in your continuing to have the majority. we have a joint responsibility to get there. and i would urge the gentleman to please consider putting something on the floor. not this -- these message bills, but putting something on the floor that will substantively deal with avoiding the sequester. let me go on to another issue that i know the gentleman's been working on and that's the violence against women act. i know he's been working with vice president biden who is very involved in is. can the gentleman tell me the status on that piece of legislation? mr. cantor: theentleman knows that my office and his have been in discussions about this bill. i have had daily meetings to try and get to a point where we can bring this forward. i as a gentleman care very deeply about women and the abuse situation that we need to get them the relief that this bill offers. that's what we want to do. that's our priority.
we must move and act on this bill. and i as well bn in touch with the vice president and his officebout trying to assist in bringing the parties together because as the gentleman knows there's been the introduction of some issues that are not directly he related to the situation of domestic abuse on tribal lands because that's at we are trying to get at. we want protect the women who are subject to abuse on tribal lands. and unfortunately there are issues that don't directly bear on that that have come up, that have complicated it, as the gentleman knows, but in working with his office as well as the vice president's, i hope to be able to deal with this, bring it up in a expeditious manner. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i thk him for his work on this as well. this is a critically important issue, and i am hopeful that we can come to an agreement which will provide for the passage of
that pie of legis president obama met with organizations tuesday to discuss his immigration plan. an inside look at the meeting and the immigration debate with deepak bhargava. then jeff flake. later, the government's treatment of soldiers with post- traumatic stress disorder. "washington journal" takes your calls, e-mails, and tweets every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> thursday, president obama and -- arne duncan on c-span3.
>> there is no prescription or role model or cookbook for being first lady. if you look back at the lives of martha washington or abigail adams or dolly madison or edith wilson or eleanor roosevelt, or the truman, or eisenhower, you can see each woman has defined the role in a way that is true to herself. how she can help her husband take care of her family, make her contribution to our nation. >> c-span's new, original series, first lady, interest and experience. in over 44 administrations. season one begins presidents' day, february, at 9:00 p.m. eastern.
>> now, a look at proposed climate change policies. this is 35 minutes. >> congressmen, democrat of california, ranking member to take your questions and comments about climate change. with the headlines this morning, wall street journal, white house ways and admission rule. the president is expected to announce he will use his own power to curb admissions from ridgy missions from existing power plants. that is one of the things he could do. explain to your viewers what that means and what you think of the idea. >> the president said we have got to address the issue of climate change.
costs, not just raise them. >> before we get to callers, i want to ask you what else you want to hear the president say about climate change. what other actions do you want to see taken? >> we have got to recognize this is a problem that is real. the contributors are man-made pollutants and the damage is happening faster than any of the scientists expected. when we put more carbon in the atmosphere, it adds to the carmen -- carbon and it's it's there for hundreds of years and we use up the opportunity to produce carbon-producing technologies in the future. we are giving away our future. the president said future generations will look at the whole question as a moral one. we cannot ignore tha problem as
serious as this. we have had cataclysmic storms and hurricanes and drought and fires. congress has spent billions and billions of dollars to try to help the areas that have become victims. what we have seen is a small example of what we will see. if we go forward, it will not eliminate problem. it will still take a lot to mitigate a lot of the damage because of the excess cause of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. >> louisiana, a republican column. >> congressman. i hope you will give me a minute or two to reel off a couple of facts about global warming. we have had 16 years with no warning whatsoever. sandy was not a hurricane when it made landfall.
the drought reporter said the drop was less likely climate change. in great britain, a report was released law when warming predictions. james, a member, he just recently lowered his expectations. i would hope the facts will come out. more and more scientists are jumping off the ship. the politicians have not gotten the picture yet. it is time to stop fear mongering and try to stop lying to us. thank you very much. >> we have an overwhelming position by most reputable scientists, the national academy of sciences, the whole international organization set up to look at this problem. if you look -- listen at -- listen to what the scientists
are saying, it is not in doubt. for decades, the tobacco industry used the ploy of saying, it is really not settled whether tobacco is harmful to people's health. if we wait until it is settled, we may find there is very little we can do about it. dear -- there are steps we can take that are prudent and reasonable. we have asked the republican leadership in our committee and the house to hold hearings and bring in the scientists. we have asked them to do things on regulation and they have said, the science does not support this position. let's hear from the scientists. then they refused to do that. they want to rely on science they have made up. it sounds like you have heard from some of their scientists. those are not reputable people. the evidence is there. it is not theoretical. we are seeing the melting of
polar ice caps. we are seen rising of the sea levels. we are seeing storms and weather events that are not theoretical. they are happening. every year, we of higher water levels every year than the year before. these are the facts. >> have you personally travelled around the world to see the effects of climate change? >> i have not. i also rely on doctors who study things i have never studied myself. i am not a scientist. but i do rely on scientists. i rely on the reputable scientists who have come in overwhelmingly with the view that we have a problem we have got to address that we cannot ignore and we cannot put our heads in the sand on this. >> the committee today will meet to adopt an action plan for the next two years. they want to hold hearings on
telecommunications and energy policy and health policy. we have sent over 20 letters asking for a simple theory bringing in the scientists. we have not even gotten answers. we will offer amendments unless the committee agrees, amendments that will at least require a hearing with scientists. how can you say the science does not support the position and then not hear from the scientists? republicans have put themselves in a real box. i know many republicans do not support this point of view, this idea that nothing is happening and we do not need to worry. the evidence is there. they are hearing it from people around the country and we are paying for it in support for the victims of hurricane sandy and the droughts of the farmers and everything else carry >> a democratic column. hello. -- everything else. >> a democratic caller.
>> a couple of years ago, when the flu was quite serious in the united states, i was working in special ed. the school closed down for an entire week. the teachers were quite joyful as they made plans and went to florida. i have a real problem with people thinking they can fly all over the globe and there are no consequences for that. what i would like to know is, is there any u.s. policy in terms of suggesting americans look to their own consumption? and do we need a policy that addresses why certain people think they are entitled to use so much more than others? >> we need an overall approach and not just one simple strategy
to reduce the greenhouse gases. primarily coming from converting fossil fuels. the main are coal and power plants and oil and automobiles. we have done a lot in the last four years under president obama. he suggested more in alternative sources, renewable sources of energy. that is important because we need to start replacing the reliance on fossil fuels. he has done a lot to make sure the automobiles are more efficient so we do not use as much gas. if we are more efficient in the use of energy, we do not have to build some of these power plants at all because we will not need that energy. the epa has proposed regulating the future power plants to produce more controls over carbon emissions.
the problems are not just from a power plants and automobiles. they are the primary sources of the issue. airplanes, as well, at a locked to the carbon emissions. usually, the prices will increase and that will discourage people from being wasteful, but we need other strategies. it is not just personal use of energy. if people need cars to drive to work, we have got to make sure cars are used less. not that people drives -- drive less. >> if there was ever a greater example, i am looking at it here right now. to say there is a consensus is bull.
if i were to do a study on the mating habits of squirrels and try to get a grant, i would not .et it the effects of global warming on the mating habits of squirrels, the money is being thrown at me, that is where you get the consensus from. the buyout scientists. if you have got a pencil on you, because i know you are not capable of remembering it, write this down and watch, what are they spring on us. look at heart, look at the things the government is doing to really affect our climate. and to go ahead and try to change policy when there is not a consensus, what you are saying about overwhelming amount of scientists is a lie. there are 31 thousand scientists signed a letter that
says al gore is hogwash. >> i do not know what to say to this fellow. you have very strong views, but opinions do not replace reality. they do not substitute for evidence. the scientistic -- scientific consensus is a very strong and we are seeing evidence. if you want to make decisions based on evidence, and reality, you look to see what is happening. you get an explanation for it. if you do not trust scientists were politicians, and you do not believe anybody but the people you here wherever, and you are going to make a lot of serious mistakes and our country will go down the wrong path. i am sorry that i disagree with you. >> what type of carbon tax would you like to see politically,
realistically? could one even get through the congress? >> carbon tax is a way to make sure when burning coal that they are not subsidized by the poor health consequences of the pollution or the anti environmental -- the good environment that is ruined by the pollution. those are called external realities of using something. power plants can use cold. it is cheaper and plentiful. the only problem is they are only paying for the coal, not the other consequences of burning coal. if you put a price on carbon, then using cold becomes a lot more expensive. then, using renewable fuels becomes a lot less expensive. a lot of economists, including republican economists, say you tax but you do not want a lot to
reduce it. you get all the incentives for the private sector to figure out how to reduce the pollution and achieve the goals, because it is in their economic interests to do it. it is not the government running the show and managing from washington. it is the incentive out there to move our economy in transition it. a price on carbon could be a tax, a cap and trade, the exemption -- example is when we had the acid rain problem. they said they would not tell us how to do it. they will limit the amount of sulfur emissions and if you need to limit sulphur, you have to pay a price for it or use alternatives or by its, or permits others will no longer used because they have reduced the sole for admission -- emissions. the result was the dramatic reduction in sulphur emissions that cause acid rain. we can have a cap and trade. i do not want to suggest it will
be easy. one way to solve the very difficult problem of a climate change issue is to put a price on carbon. it also could help us reduce the retractable problem of our deficit. some of that can be used for deficit reduction. would be a lot more appealing than other taxes or cuts in entitlements, those are very difficult measures. >> a cost to carbon, and the one of those proposals, do you think that happens during the second term of the obama administration? >> i hope it will. it is a long shot because of the opposition from some republicans. a secretary, secretary schulz, a secretary of state and economic adviser under nixon and reagan, he supported the idea of a tax. a lot of republicans said, let's
tax carbon and use the tax money to reduce other taxes, like corporate taxes. let's do something to move the incentives away from adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. >> a democratic caller. >> good morning, c-span. the morning. that last caller, i am thankful for guys like you. i am appreciative. unfortunately, the message we are trying to get across is that global warming, how it affects the jet streams and the weather and how that intern causes climate change. the knuckle draggers you were just listening to who, instead of getting their facts from the discovery channel, listen to fox news, and do not correlate the
planet's temperature, the ocean temperature, and how it affects the jet stream, and the immediate cause it has on the climate. the message is being lost because they listen to fox and they will listen out the window and some stupid marked remote -- remark about global warming, but they cannot deny that the nine out of town last years have been warmer than -- warmest on record. the message is being lost on the tie between global warming, how it affects suggestions and weather. >> let's talk about that with the congressman. the messages being lost. >> you read the opinion polls a few minutes ago. the message is not lost. the majority of american people want us to do something about the problem.
they recognize it is a problem. they understand it will not go away by itself. they are seeing more and more consequences from it. when you say it will cost 50% more, they say, i do not want to do that. but people do have a sense something is wrong even though some of their leaders in washington, especially republican leaders, say they deny it and they do not think it is true. then they refuse to bring in scientists to tell them what scientists have found. it is amazing to me this is a message that has become partisan. science has never been partisan. you look at the evidence and scientific hypotheses. you explain it any move forward based on the strict evaluation. it is not a political one. yet, we have republicans denying there is such a problem and
democrats saying there is. it is absurd that it would be partisan. >> has the president on an adequate job? >> he has done a lot in the past four years. he has been restrained. i hope with his strong statement in his inaugural address, what he may well say next week in his address, he will appoint people within his administration to look at the different things they can do, and the epa can obviously regulate power plants and other major sources. the department of energy can require greater efficiency in our appliances, which will save consumers money. we can do more with reducing the efficiency in automobiles, which we have plans to do. the department of state can negotiate the montreal protocol to get the h f see's, which add
to the destruction of the upper ozone. there is an international agreement and we have seen success and we do see these chlorofluorocarbons. there is an h.f. see that ought to be eliminated to deal with both the global warming problem, as well as the upper ozone. there are a lot of things we can do. cracks in indianapolis, an independent college. >> good morning. my question is, you called republican scientists unreliable and your scientists rival. let's back off from character assassinations. in 1888, it was the hottest -- the warmest record temperatures before the turn of events. i guess it was all the cars in 1888 that were causing the problem. my question is, you have
cylindrical, the battery maker, in their belts, all auto companies. let's go to a 123. the government put into hundred $89 billion because they were going to have the highest electric battery technology. it is now owned by the chinese. the company that was funded by the department of energy to come up with the electric batteries is now owned by the chinese. my suggestion is if you go back to all those democratic investors like yourself, who want to drive the message, all their money was paid back before these companies went bankrupt. let's go back to those investors and rather than take -- we shut down the coal plants. take all that money and invest
it in a clean coal. if you could spend $1 trillion on all these automobile companies, maybe you could go back and spend it on clean coal and help the people in west virginia. >> you said so many things that are incorrect. i am not talking about democratic scientists versus republican scientists. democrats believe what the scientists are saying and listen to them. republicans are closing their minds.
era, and the hope is we can bring those wars to an end. we are facing as a nation new opportunities and new possibilities. i really believe that in many ways we have an opportunity to enter a whole new renaissance in the united states, to develop an economy that is creative, that is innovative, that can grow strong in the 21st century. a country that can provide world leadership, can provide the kind of security, partnership in which we can work with other countries to develop their capabilities, to form new alliances, to form new partnerships with countries across the world so that we can build a family of nations, that
can help provide security in a difficult world. but at the same time that we have those opportunities, we face some very real challenges. grabbling with a record -- grappling with a record debt and deficit, threat of global warming, threat of global poverty, of pandemics, of national security challenges like continuing war on terrorism, the instability of iran and north korea, rising powers, turmoil across the middle east, turmoil in north africa, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the growing threat of cyberattacks.
how we confront these problems, how we deal with these challenges will in many ways determine that future course of america. it will determine whether the united states will be a leader in the 21st century or whether we will be just another failed empire in history. to succeed we will depend on the resilience of our economy, the strength of our diplomatic and military institutions and above all, the effectiveness of our political system that underpins in many ways what we do as a country. and that brings me to what i see as perhaps the most urgent task facing this nation and facing all of us and that is overcoming the partisan dysfunction in congress that poses a threat to our quality of
life, to our national security, to our economy, to our ability to address the problems that confront this country. when i think of the current political environment, i cannot help but share a story that another jesuit educated member of congress and a fellow italian that i had the honor to serve with, a guy named silvio conte from massachusetts, told during the time we were involved in budget negotiations, this was during the reagan administration.
republicans, democrats came together with the leadership of the administration -- reagan administration. we sat in a room in the capitol working day in, day out. everything was on the table. we had defense on the table. we had discretionary on the table. we had entitlements on the table and we had revenues on the table. everything. and we were working through it trying to develop a package. leadership made very clear that we had to get this done. every time we thought we were close, somebody would stand up, walk out of the room, didn't like what was happening and, you know, it got tough. and at one meeting where somebody just got up, we thought we were close to getting a deal. it was a senator from florida that got up and said, i can't support this, and he stormed out of the room. silvio said, you know, this reminds me of the story of the
three missionaries. the french, the british and the italian missionaries who were in a very remote part of the world and they were going down this very remote wilderness river in their canoe and the canoe suddenly tipped over and they managed to make it to shore only to fall into the hands of a cannibal tribe. and the chief of the tribe looked at them and said, look, you got a choice here. you can either jump in this pot of boiling water or you can take your own lives. either way we're going to use your skins for our canoes. french missionary on hearing that pulled out his little knife, cut his wrists and said, viva la france.
the british missionary took out his knife, plunged it into his chest and said, god save the king. the italian took out his stiletto and started punching himself in the stomach and chest area, and the chief said, what the hell are you doing? the italian said, i'm trying to screw up your canoe. [laughter] only an italian is supposed to tell that story. but these days, the fact is there are a lot of people trying to screw up the canoe. i used to say to the students at the panetta institute -- and i still say it when i get a chance, and i say it to you, that we govern in our democracy either through leadership or through crisis.
if leadership is there and there are those that are elected who are willing to take the risks associated with leadership, to make the tough decisions that have to be made, and hopefully crisis can be avoided, but if leadership is not there, if it's absent, for whatever reason, then make no mistake about it, crisis drives policy in this country. today crisis drives policy. it has become too politically convenient to simple low allow a crisis to develop and get worse and then react to the crisis.
i understand. look. somebody who was in politics as a representative for 16 years, i understand the mentality. why do i have to make tough decisions that anger my constituents, raise their taxes, cut their entitlements, why do i have to do those decisions when i can simply stand back and allow crisis to occur? and then in the midst of crisis, terrible crisis, then i can look at my constituents and say, i had a hell of a crisis i had to deal with so that's why i had to make these decisions. it's the easy way out. and i understand that it's one way to govern -- by crisis. but make no mistake about it,
there is a price to be paid. and the price to be paid is that you lose the trust of the american people. you create an aura of constant uncertainty that pervades every issue and gradually undermines the very credibility of this nation to be able to govern itself. my greatest concern today is that we are putting our national security at risk by lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis to budget crisis. when i was nominated to be the 23rd secretary of defense,
based on my own experience dealing with budget issues, as chairman of the house budget committee, i was director of the office of management and budget, i knew very well that the department of defense had a responsibility to be able to do its part in dealing with the fiscal crisis in this country. every budget summit that i had been a part of in the reagan years, first bush years, during the clinton administration, every budget summit we knew that defense had to play a role in trying to be able to control our deficits. soon after i became secretary, i was handed a number of $487 billion, almost half a trillion dollars that i was to cut out of the defense budget. it was contained in the budget
control act, and i was required to be able to get that number of savings over the next 10 years. after a decade of blank check spending in the department of defense, it was important for us, the leaders of the department, chairman of the joint chiefs, the service chiefs, the service secretaries and myself who strongly believe that we had to meet this challenge of reducing the defense budget but we had to do it in a way that simply would not hallow out the force. we came out of every other period, every other war, we made the terrible mistake of hallowing out the force coming
the best way to do that is to then establish a strategy. what is the defense strategy we want in order to create the force that we need, not just today, but in the future, the force of the 21st century? and how do we do this in a way that also meets our commitments to our service members and to our families so we don't break trust with them? so our effort then was aimed at developing a defense strategy for what we needed in the 21st century, and during the course of my first six months as secretary we worked together as a team. i had everybody in the room, something that, you know, was not exactly that prevalent in the past. military over here, civilians over here and not that often did they come together to really work to resolve policy. and my approach was, i'm going
to -- i have to be able to work as a team if we're going to be able to take on this challenge. and to their credit they did that, both military and civilian leaders, and we consulted with the president. we consulted with the national security team at the white house as we went through this. and everybody endorsed the policy and strategy that we came up with.
it has five key elements. the first is that we know we're going to be smaller and leaner coming out of these wars. we are going to be smaller and leaner as a force. but we can be as a force agile, flexible, quickly deployable and at the cutting edge of technology. that can be an effective force for the future. yet, we can be smaller, but agility, flexibility, the ability to move fast when crisis happens, that's what can distinguish the united states' defense policy. secondly, it was important for us to project power into the pacific and into the middle east. those are the key areas where we've got some serious problems -- north korea, iran. we need to have a power presence in those areas. because that's where the greatest potential for conflict lies.
third, we need to maintain a presence elsewhere in the world, and so what was developed was the idea, an innovative idea of rotational deployments where we could send our forces into countries, latin america, africa, europe, other places to train, to exercise, to work with that country to develop their capabilities, to develop new partnerships, new alliances so that they could become part of this security force for the future. fourthly, we had to maintain the capability to defeat more than one enemy at a time. if we're in a war in north korea and at the same time the straits of hormuz is closed, we got to be able to respond to both of those conflicts. to be able to confront the enemy and ultimately defeat an enemy on both fronts, and we have that capability, maintaining that capability was important. and lastly, this can't just be about cutting. it has to be about investing. every time we've gone through budgets -- i used to do this during the clinton administration. yes, you cut, you find savings but at the same time you establish priorities. budgets are not just numbers. budgets are about priorities. and so what are our priorities that we have to invest in for the future? so we made the decision we have to invest in things like cyber, in unmanned systems, in special operations, in space all of which will help us be on the cutting edge of the future. invest in new technologies. invest in the ability to mobilize quickly. invest in the ability to maintain -- as i said -- that decisive technological edge in the future, and maintain our industrial base in this country, our defense industrial base. the last damn thing we need if we face a crisis is to somehow contract out that responsibility to another country. so we have to maintain the core industrial base that we need, the skills that are essential
to our ability to maintain a strong national defense. so that strategy established priorities. it reshaped the force to deal with the challenges not just today but of tomorrow. let me just mention one area where i believe we need to be ahead of the game and that's in the cyber area. as i said, we face a number of threats -- korea, north korea, iran, terrorism, etc.. but one of the great threats we face today is the threat from cyberattacks. we have got to have the capability to stay ahead of this new challenge. in the face of what i believe is a growing threat to our economy and a growing threat to our critical infrastructure.
we are literally the target of thousands of cyberattacks every day. every day thousands of cyberattacks that are striking at the private sector, strike at silicon valley, strike at other institutions, within our society, strike at government, strike at the defense department and our intelligence agencies. and cyber is now at a point where the technology is there to cripple a country, to take down our power grid system, to take down our government systems, take down our financial systems and literally paralyze the
over the last two years, we've done that. we've invested a great deal, and we will do that in the future. we are going to invest more in cyber to try to give us the capability to be able to protect our critical infrastructure against the kind of imminent and destructive cyberattacks i just talked about. but to do that, frankly, we are going to need legislation.
we've asked for legislation from the congress to try to give us the tools we need, the legal tools we need so we can develop a partnership with the private sector to be able to confront these challenges. i hope that ultimately congress will take that step. that's an important step to trying to be able to defend this country from those nations that would use a cyberattack to weaken us. with the defense strategy that we establish put in place, our hope is that we can deal with the wide range of threats and do it in a way that meets our fiscal responsibilities. i don't think you have to choose between protecting our national security and protecting our fiscal security as well. but this strategy and our ability to effectively confront the security challenges that i talked about is at a very serious risk. not because of our capabilities, not because of what we can do, not because of the strength of the united states. we are the strongest military power in the world. it's not serious. that's not what creates a serious risk. what creates a serious risk today is the pervasive budget uncertainty that threatens our security and threatens our economic future. since the budget control act was passed in august, 2011, the department of defense, other would let it happen.
we the people of the united states. in order to establish a more perfect union. in order to establish justice and domestic tranquillity and common. we the people. the matter what i have done in my career where i have gone and life, i have always remembered that i had the opportunity to live the american dream. the ability like millions of others to have the opportunity to succeed at what he wanted to do. . we had parents with no money in their pocket, but the hope of capturing that american dream.
i asked my father why you would travel all of the mouse to come to a strange country. he said it was because they believe they give their children a better life. i think that is the american dream. we will make whatever sacrifices necessary to give our children a better life, a quality education, and a more secure future. this feature is not guaranteed. you have to work for it and you have to fight for it. i will end with a story ahead told many times, because it makes the right. . the rabbi and the priest to decided it would get to know each other a little better.
if the other woman about his mother's religion. at the boxing match just before the bell rang one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the priest said, it does not mean anything if you cannot fight. we bless ourselves with the hope everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean anything unless you're willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream. the drama -- that torch of duty
is as into a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for the better future. think you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies
program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting. at georgetown, we do care about these issues and we share your concerns, as well. in the defense budget of 2013, i understand 19% of the budget is being represented for personnel. about 26% is for procurement. 40% is for operations. if you look at all the different accounts for which the budget is requested, and the sequestration cuts across the board will affect seriously to
the manpower, the modernization, and the leadership of the military. i have reviewed a lot of documents of the defense budget for many years in the past. i do not see a way how we can cut the defense budget. i do not see a way how sequestration will occur and not affect these three crucial defense-related areas. now, knowing that only around 4% of the gdp is being constituted by the base defense budget, and a bulk of the gdp -- >> we agree on your facts. what is the question? [laughter] >> right. this is a puzzle to me.
my question is, this is really a puzzle. [laughter] how can you balance the budget without either cutting the defense budget or the mandatory account, medicare, medicaid? >> i got it. look, understand that the federal budget has certain parameters and if you are serious about trying to reduce the deficit, which now is at $1 trillion plus, and trying to reduce the national debt, there is no way you can do that
without putting everything on the table. you have got to put everything on the table. obviously, as you do that, you will established some priorities. you have got to find savings. the entitlement programs right now represents almost two- thirds of the federal budget. about one-third is discretionary spending. there is no way you can move toward a balanced budget and not put all of that on the table. every budget summit i have been a part of -- the reagan administration, the bush administration, the clinton administration, putting together the budget -- we had to raise additional revenues, and we had to take reductions on discretionary spending. all that has to be part of the package. all of that has to be included
if you want to be able to put together a budget deal that will solve this problem. but we went through this before. this is not new. republicans do not want to raise taxes. they do not want to cut defense. democrats to not want to cut entitlement spending. in order to get a deal, both have to make compromises. both have to be willing to give in order to put that large deal together. in the past, that is what happened. republicans were willing to compromise. democrats were willing to compromise. the result was we ultimately balanced the federal budget. we did what we had to do. damn it, that is what has to be done now. defense has to play its role. but to put the package together that you have to have in order to ultimately resolve our deficit issue, all of those areas have to be included in the deal.
next question. >> good morning. i am a freshman here. my question is concerning cyber attacks. you mentioned they posed an expensive threat. do you believe cyber warfare, such as a virus, will be an important part of future u.s. foreign policy? >> cyber technology, and you are so aware of this, developments that have taken place in the cyber arena have been incredible in the last 10 years. i worked with a typewriter. [laughter] what i am seeing today in terms of the developments on cyber, it has been incredible.
i have to say, working at the cia, the defense department, and seeing the kind of cutting edge technology that is being developed, there is no question in my mind that part and parcel, and the attack on this country in the future by any enemy is going to include a cyber element to it. but that will be part of the weapon that will be used to cripple us in the event of an attack. i have to say the united states, it is part of our strategy. we considered the importance of the cyber element.
yes, we are living in that world. i have said this and i believe it. it is very possible the next pearl harbor could be a cyber attack. you could in fact cripple our power grid system, our government systems, our financial systems, with a cyber attack. that is something we have to worry about and protect against. >> good morning. i am an international student from japan. i would like to ask your opinion about the dispute between china and japan. it was revealed that the chinese vessel had lot weapons on the japanese navy. i want to hear how much you think an issue this was. >> i was just in that part of
the world in the last few months. i had a chance to go to japan and visit with my counterparts in japan and discuss their concerns and then i went on to china to talk with them about their concerns as well. i believe that, especially the secaucus islands and the dispute over that, that territorial dispute, is one that concerns as a great deal. it is the kind of situation where their territorial claims that could ultimately get out of hand and one country or the other could react in a way that could create an even greater crisis. we urged, of music, both the chinese and the japanese to exercise -- we urge, obviously, both the chinese and the japanese to exercise good judgment.
in the pacific, this is a big region. part of our reason to rebalance to the pacific is because we think that, in many ways, our future economic security, our trade relationships, our security relationships will be in that part of the world. and we have great allies in japan and south korea and other countries that are working with us to deal with the challenges. there is a common set of challenges here. i said this to the chinese leaders as well. one is their ability to respond to disasters in that part of the world, the ability of these countries to be able to react when a disaster takes place. the ability to deal with the threat of missile proliferation, especially in north korea and the threat that represents to the security of that region.
the ability to deal with parsing, the idea -- the it -- with piracy, the ability to deal with cyber threats, the ability to deal with financial issues that we can provide security, the ability to deal with territorial disputes. that is why i thought the allens is an incredible issue we ought -- the islands is an incredible issue to support. i told the chinese that it is in your interest to work with other countries to resolve these issues because, if your -- if your interest is in the pacific region that can be peaceful and can prosper in the future, you have to be part of that. it cannot be a china that
threatens other countries. it cannot be a china that threatens to go after their territories and create territorial disputes. they have to be part of a family of nations in that region working together in order to ensure peace and prosperity. i sense in the leadership in china that they recognize the and importance of trying to develop that kind of communication. i urge them that we should discuss cyber issues. ayers them that we should discuss defense issues. and they said they were willing to engage in those kinds of strategic talks. and i think it will be very important for them to know that the united states, japan, korea and other countries in the part of the world will do everything we have to do to promote security and prosperity and that they should be a part of that, not against it.
>> good morning, mr. secretary. but i want to thank you for your lifetime of service and leadership. i am a second year in math and science and foreign service and domestic policy. i am also an army veteran and them currently a member of the maryland national guard. >> good for you. >> in the political crisis and the economic crisis in this country, in your speech, you've talked about "week, the people," i would like to bring up the social crisis currently. on average, members of the military commit suicide at the rate of 22 deaths per day. that is a the one death every 65 minutes. i would like to know what the
department of defense and lawmakers can do to effectively address that crisis, the social problem. and also please say something about homelessness among veterans. >> yes. it is one of the most tragic issues that we deal with right now in the military. it is the growing rate of suicides that are taking place. and in some ways, they reflect the growth of suicide in the general society. part of this, there's no question in my mind that it is related to the stress of war over the last 10 years, the fact that we have deployed people time and time again, time away from their family, time away from the ability to kind of get their feedback on the ground. to be able to repeat themselves into society. soy lot of that, i think, is
due to that stress. a lot of it is due to stress in the general society. financial problems, family problems, drinking problems, drug problems. all of that contributes to the growing rate of suicide. i think there is also kind of -- i guess i say this in part like a catholic, but the fact is that people somehow don't associate with suicides as being the wrong way to deal with a problem. that is something i was raised to believe. you just don't do that. you just have to confront the challenges you have to confront. but today, there seems to be an attitude that to said are a way out and they -- -- that suicides are a way out and they are not. they are not current -- they are
not. we have to build a support system for those in the service. we have to build greater abilities and deal with mental- health issues so that we understand that. we have to have better professionals who can identify those problems and provide assistance. frankly, we also need to educate the force. you have to have peers who are working alongside of you who can identify those problems. someone looks like they have problems, the they are having a difficult time, to identify that and make sure that that person gets the help they need. it is like everything else. all of us need to be aware -- all of us need to be a part of the answer to be able to make sure that doesn't happen. but this is something that -- there is no silver bullet. there is no silver bullet here. i wish there was.
it means we have to operate on every front to do with this. we have to be able to make sure that we deployed people in a rational basis so they are deployed into a combat area, but then have an amount of time that they can get their lives back together again. and do it rationally. that has to be done. we have to provide the support system, the health care system, be able to educate the force, to understand and to recognize those kinds of problems. all of that needs to be done if we're to address this. most importantly, i think we just have to convey a message to those men and women in uniform that we treasure those who are willing to put their life on the line. we will not take them for granted. that is a message we have to get to them. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> ok. is that it? thank you all very much. [applause]